Fourth edition of tables for calculating the six standardcomponents of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System. Thefirst three components are fuel moisture codes that follow dailychanges in the moisture contents of three classes of forestsfuel; the final three are fire behaviour indexes that representrate of spread, amount of available fuel, and fire intensity. The system provides a uniform method of rating fire danger acrossCanada.

This weather guide includes detailed specifications for locating and instrumenting fire weather stations, taking weather observations, and overwintering the Drought Code component of the FWI System. The sensitivity of the FWI System components to weather elements is represented quantitatively. The importance of weather that is not directly observable is discussed in the context of fuel moisture and fire behavior. Current developments in the observation and measurement of fire weather and the forecasting of fire danger are discussed, along with the implications for the reporting of fire weather of increasingly automated fire management information systems.

This interactive CD-ROM offers a comprehensive introduction to the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) system. It combines graphics, photos, animation, sound and motion video with the interactivity, versatility and responsiveness of the computer.

Seminar paper from the year 2014 in the subject Forestry / Forestry Economics, grade: 1,3, University of Toronto, language: English, abstract: This paper describes and compares conceptually the Fire Weather Index (FWI) system of Canada and the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) of the USA. The relatively simple FWI system rates fire danger for all Canada and is based on empirical field-data derived from a single fuel type. The laboratory-based NFDRS, in contrast, allows more specification for distinct fire danger areas and models fuel moisture more abstract and in different classifications. Relative strengths and weaknesses with regard to the vegetative conditions in the particular country are discussed. The use of empirical data and the good and simple representation of soil moisture are the major strengths of the FWI system. The NFDRS wins through its possibility to model specifically a distinct fire danger area and through the consideration of live fuel moisture content. The conclusion of this paper is that both systems can benefit from each other. A combination of the simplicity of the FWI and specialization on a distinct area through the site descriptors similar to the ones of the NFDRS is proposed.